KTIP Task Force Meeting
July 25, 2008
Education Professional Standards Board
Conference Room B
Phillip Rogers, Executive Director, EPSB
Cindy Owen, Division Director
Teresa Moore, Program Manager
Ms. Cindy Owen opened the meeting with a welcome and introductions at 10:11 am. Ms.
Rebecca Goss will report the progress of the group to the Board at each meeting.
It was suggested that a contact list be provided to each Task Force member, to include
names, email addresses and phone numbers.
Ms. Owen went over the background reasons for the Task Force, the charter, and the
Board decision to create the Task Force, which included the following:
state and agency budget cuts
university contract amount reductions
reducing resource teacher (RT) pay which would cause districts a hardship in
examine how KTIP can be accomplished differently
the need to think “outside the box”
the need to think of a short-term solution
the need to think of a long-term solution
Then the following questions were posed:
How do we get the money back?
How do we preserve the process?
Dr. Phillip Rogers stated that KTIP is an unprecedented program, and it has been
consistent and effective. KTIP is really an appreciated program, and trimming down is
not a sustainable approach. The agency has had to use money from other programs and
from the operating budget to fund KTIP for several years. Such borrowing has happened
across the board, not just for KTIP. We need to become creative and work with the basic
issues, which are the importance of RTs and teacher educators (TE), the university roles,
as well as the district roles. This group will bring some serious recommendations to the
Board in regards to KTIP. Dr. Rogers went on to say that the Board can waive
regulations but not statute. EPSB was hoping to get relief to help control costs by getting
“withstanding language;” however, that did not happen. We anticipate there will be
interns who will not be permitted into KTIP because we do not have the funds to pay for
a resource teacher. The timeframe for this Task Force is short, and the Task Force will
need to provide the Board with regular updates. Dr. Rogers closed his remarks by saying
that nothing is too radical to be brought to the table.
Ms. Liz Storey asked if we need to think outside the law. Paul Upchurch wanted to know
if we had to think outside the current budget. The answer to both was yes.
Ms. Storey asked if not serving all interns was unprecedented. Dr. Rogers stated that
EPSB had always been able to serve all interns. Ms. Storey asked if KTIP could not
serve all interns in the fall, would those left over be able to start KTIP in January.
The answer was that there would be no new funds for January once the fall slots were
The next question concerned whether those new teachers could be put on a priority list,
and the response was that some would not be rehired. They would be put in the batch
with the other interns who were waiting.
GRREC submitted a letter to Dr. Rogers and wasn’t sure that was understood. GRREC
realizes the conflict but hopes the districts will work to make things happen for the new
teachers. Dr. Sharon Brennan brought up the fact that retirements will likely increase,
which will cause districts to hire interns.
Dr. Rogers brought up that payments to TEs are not incorporated by law. However, if a
university cannot supply a TE, the district will have to, and that is in statute.
Ms. Owen asked if something that would provide relief could be taken to the short
session of legislatures. Dr. Rogers stated that is an option but we would need to find a
sponsor and a lot of leg work would be required. All stakeholders would need to look at
the option to make it work.
Mr. Paul Upchurch wanted to know if the law or the budget was the greater obstacle. Dr.
Rogers stated the money is not the issue because we don’t have any. He went on to state
that the Task Force needed to focus on the law and that the law has never been changed.
Dr. Brennan said Kentucky was one of the first states to put something together to help
with student achievement and support of teachers. Ms. Storey said that we cannot argue
with the research. We need to communicate that the main concern is about the teachers,
which also affects the students. Dr. Rogers said that we need to emphasize professional
learning communities and infuse the notion throughout KTIP. A lot has been done, and it
is effective. It’s a way to turn schools around. We need clever thinking so that expands
throughout the schools and affects the universities. Then he asked, “How do we flesh
Mr. Jason Coguer stated that after KTIP we tend to forget about the teachers but that
learning communities would provide support after KTIP. Mr. Upchurch stated that
Oldham County assigns a veteran teacher to an intern for two years. Ms. Goss stated that
Harlan County also does the same, but for three years. Dr. Rogers then said that the Task
Force could help move that idea forward. This would have a real impact in Kentucky and
would support everyone. The redesign of the master’s and leadership programs meshes
with this idea. Also this is cost effective because stipends are no longer available, and
this would be a perfect opportunity to refine this program.
Ms. LuAnn Asbury stated that we don’t utilize the National Board (NB) teachers as much
as we should. These could be assigned as TEs because they know the process and jargon
and how to help new teachers. KEA will push National Board certification by providing
funds. She asked if the NB teachers are staying in the classroom. The answer to that
was, “Yes.” She went on to say that NB teachers are showing up more in the lower tier
schools. She further stated that RTs should have the option of accepting a stipend or a
tuition waiver at a university. She also asked if a spouse or child could use the tuition
waiver instead of the RT? She was told that this could not happen because waivers are
only for the RT and that each university handles tuition waivers differently.
Dr. Roberts suggested using the current structure to help pull pieces together in a
different configuration. He further stated that we need to support everyone who comes in
as long as needed to make them successful. Dr. Rogers said we may need to look beyond
the first year, which we have funded.
Ms. Storey asked if we could guarantee every new teacher was in a learning community
with all the right pieces with a TE?
Ms. Asbury said we need the university teaching faculty to come to schools and see what
the teachers are doing in the classroom. Dr. Brennan said their TEs are involved in the
schools in some form and they may have to get some TEs from private colleges or
universities. Ms. Owen stated our condition would not allow us to do what we have been
doing. We cannot afford TEs no matter what their credentials are.
Dr. Rogers then asked the following questions:
How can teacher education make for an optimal contribution to the experience?
How can higher education faculty do this with no compensation?
What expertise can the university bring to the table to help with the partnerships?
How can we have learning communities incorporated with higher education?
Could we include a cohort group and the university as part of the learning
Can we incorporate this expectation with what they are already doing?
Dr. Rogers went on to say that we cannot tolerate disparity and that when teachers come
out of higher education they have what they need to be successful. We need a team
Ms. Aimee Webb said that if we look at the current process and it becomes part of pre-
service for teachers that would close the gap. We need to factor this in somehow. If and
when new teachers complete KTIP they have some sort of advancement, this would also
At this point, the Task Force reviewed “Thoughts from the Field,” and the following
points were made:
Thought 1: Make KTIP a university course that would pay for the TE, and
after the intern completes KTIP, he or she could receive both the Bachelors
degree and the professional teaching certificate.
o Violates the certification statute.
o Hard to do in terms of unifacing.
o Dr. Rogers said we could push into a master’s degree.
o Would the individual be expected to pay the price of a university course?
o That was the intent. Politically would run into problems requiring a new
teacher to pay $1400 right out of school.
o Teacher preparation is already loaded and requiring another course would
o Would love the idea of it being a master’s course.
o Put it in practice instead of before practice.
Thought 3: Allow all universities to set up a program like WKU has
established where the program is designed to be 3 years and results in a
o WKU has started.
o Masters starts with KTIP. For all tasks, they had support materials.
o Mentor teachers have gotten as much if not more then the interns.
o Would the TE be supported by the fees the interns pay?
o Would the TE be a faculty member that is involved in the classes? To do
this they would have to pay tuition.
o If modified, it could be a possibility that the TE who works in this
program would be serving on the KTIP committee.
o Stipend for TE would go away because they are being paid to teach the
o Would have to have 25-30 interns in a class.
o Could we look at a cohort model for TEs where RTs and interns come
together with other RTs and interns? Would not have to be face-to-face;
there could be other ways to facilitate.
o Thought of the intern having to pay tuition would not pass through
legislature as this is not feasible for interns.
o A year of KTIP would not complete a master’s as the intern would have to
take other classes. Some districts are too far from universities. This could
be offered but could not be a requirement.
Thought 5: Give the money for KTIP to the districts and allow districts to
work with the universities to evaluate interns.
o This idea is the only one that does not require the intern to pay.
o Not sure all would come out equal because some districts would have
o Would need to have connection with universities.
o Law as it is right now would not allow for this.
o Would need to restructure the entire process and cannot eliminate anyone.
Thought 8: Create learning communities in schools and districts with
universities providing the training and consulting support for mentoring
interns and consider KTIP as a mentoring versus an evaluation program.
o This thought sends the message that the mentoring is critical.
o The evaluation process is very important.
o Mentoring only would be a concern.
Thought 9: Establish a two-person KTIP committee for each intern and a
university KTIP expert at each public university that would:
Help establish district/school learning communities
Provide consulting services to districts and schools
Provide mediation services for KTIP committees with
Recruit faculty to be KTIP consultants to districts and schools
Provide training for KTIP committee members
Develop and maintain KTIP materials and assessments
Conduct random audits of TPAs, submit annual reports to
EPSB, and recommend program improvements
o This thought details what a university would do.
o The outside person provides value.
o We could not fund TEs but would fund a position at the university as a
shared cost between EPSB and the university.
o Ms. Webb suggested using the consultant for a struggling intern only and
setting up a process to identify them early.
o Ms. Goss said she liked being a RT because it helped her as much as the
o If we bring in the university with learning communities, the district will
o Mr. Coguer stated that we could have a liaison with the universities to help
with research even if they do not have interns. Have a person from the
universities meet with different departments to look at assessments, lesson
plan designs, sit and observe all teachers, etc.
o Dr. Rogers suggested a broader level to engage them into learning
communities, a broader group that the intern will have connections to.
o Someone other then the resource teacher would be a benefit. There is a lot
of merit in this thought to have a liaison between districts and universities.
o A university liaison is good but finding someone who is a Jack-of-all-
Trades could be hard. Not sure it would be cost-saving.
o Ms. Owen asked where beginning teachers could go if they have
o Dr. Roberts said it depends on the personality of the person.
At this point, Dr. Brennan stated that the right path to take is to develop professional
learning communities, but we would also need mentoring and evaluating. She then asked
how we would mesh these elements. She advocated keeping a cohort in mind and asked
what structure would we want that embraces mentoring and evaluating? Do we want to
retain TPA? The answer is a positive one because it gets new teachers to talk about
student learning. Cohorts of interns could bring a great deal of value to KTIP.
When Ms. Storey asked if the Board had brainstormed any ideas, Dr. Rogers and Ms.
Goss said that they had formed the Task Force to help come up with ideas.
The question was then asked about the kind of feedback wanted after this year and how
that feedback could be obtained.
The response was that the model could be a great deal like the National Board process,
which would be reasonable for the intern. The group made the following points:
Observers would observe three times.
Bring in the observers with the intern and the learning communities would be
developed and the Professional Growth Plan (PGP) would as well.
Then a person would be brought in to help with the growth areas.
The question was asked, “Why couldn’t we choose what is best for us?’
What happens to those that need help in choosing or need a Cycle II instead of
just at the end?
Run a violation of due process.
Keep checks and balances and do cycles but bring in liaison to help when and
The process should be skills-based and not time-based. In the past, if an intern
were weak in a standard, committees have passed that intern because the
committee doesn’t want the intern to do another whole year.
Have a liaison come in and help the intern to show that he or she is now strong in
that area instead of repeating all of KTIP. The intern could bank the successful
The intern could produce evidence as soon as he or she is able within a time frame
and might even have to go into another school year.
What happens if the intern moved districts?
Would they have to stay in the learning communities until they are successful?
Why do they have to repeat the whole process when they are successful in some
Could you have the ones that haven’t passed all standards stay in the learning
communities, remove the evaluation but provide the TPA when ready?
How do we create the communities that are going to provide ongoing support?
At this point in the conversation, Dr. Rogers asked if the RT money could go to the
districts and let them decide how to spend it. There would have to be a process to ensure
that the money is spent in a proper way. There would need to be guidelines on what the
learning communities would look like. The Cooperatives are concerned with how to
promote learning communities. Learning communities would start with the committee
and then include others to provide assistance.
Ms. Asbury suggested that one focus would be to include PD on learning communities in
with SBDM training. She added that just because an intern finished KTIP that doesn’t
mean the intern has finished the PGP. Several thoughts included:
Due process allows for time to grow.
An intern could pass all requirements except the PGP, and then the learning
community would sign off on the PGP.
Who would be in learning communities?
What if evaluators would be outsiders?
Principals would be evaluators and teachers would be mentors.
External person lends credibility.
Where would external person come from?
Keep the administrator and university person as part of the learning community.
The question was asked if the TE would be used to do a diagnostic and summative report
or used only for evaluation. Mr. Upchurch asked if we would save money by removing
TEs. Dr. Rogers said the TE payment is hurting us. Ms. Owen stated we could not have
the TE in the evaluating process and in the learning communities. She suggested that the
university could help in the learning community, not with content, but with process. She
asked how one person from a university could be an important member in the role of
evaluator or learning community if there were 400 + interns. Could they base the number
of people in learning communities on the number of interns? In a cohort model, could
the intern travel instead of university person.
Mr. Coguer suggested assigning a TE only if the internship is unsuccessful. Ms. Webb
asked what if the RT is intimidated by the principal when an intern is not doing well.
You would think the third party is not influenced by the committee; however, most TEs
are coming from the district. Is there a way to separate mentoring and evaluation? The
consensus of the Task Force was that separating mentoring and evaluation was a must.
If the system cannot afford both the principal and the TE as evaluators, it was suggested
that the principal was the person to have.
Someone asked if a good audit system could analyze the suggested process to see if it
works? If an intern is not doing well after the second cycle then the principal must call in
the university. Due process would include the involvement of the learning community
and the university.
Ms. Asbury asked if an intern could request a university representative. The response
was that this should be at the discretion of the university, because this might set up an
Dr. Roberts suggested that the TE could do one visit (plus mileage), and this would keep
credibility in the program. He went on to ask, “Why pay the district to do what they are
required to do, which is evaluation?”
A Professional Learning Community (PLC) would be purely a mentoring factor. A PLC
would not provide evaluation, as there is a need to separate mentoring and evaluating.
Diagnosis would be a large piece of the PLC. A learning community or team should be
modeled after the medical program, in that if the principal does the evaluation and the
intern is unsuccessful, the intern needs to know where to go for help.
Ms. Owen then asked if visits for TEs were reduced, could we align the requirements for
TEs across the state. This could increase the quality of TEs and could get more involved.
She also said she believed the PLC is the school.
Next the conversation centered on the PLC, and the following concerns were raised:
How would we ensure and define the PLC?
There should be a process of common assessment, with teachers working
collegiately to improve student learning and providing a response to intervention.
What would be the first elements to put in place?
Could the RT initiate the PLC and include the RT, intern, and another teacher?
The third teacher would ask where his or her money is.
Don’t call them PLC but a support group.
Could you call them Intern Learning Team (ILT)? (The consensus was, “Yes.”)
Would there be specs on the other teacher? Would that teacher need to be in the
same grade level or content?
Would the ILT meet outside of school hours?
How would the RT money be split among the RT and other teacher?
Money could be sent to the district to support the out-of-class hours of the ILT,
and the district would divide money among the RT and other teacher.
Need to call them mentors instead of RTs.
Accountability would still be in the time sheet.
Controls need to be in place to guarantee interns are receiving the support they
Dr. Rogers was concerned that the relationship between the RT and intern is
sometimes stormy or they become lifelong buddies.
If the district moves that person around will we lose that or make it better?
The thought was that it would make it better.
Districts would need to ensure there are two support groups in order to hire an
Is the money going to come back and haunt us?
Mr. Coguer said they need release time; could some of the money be used for
Could the districts afford so many release days? We (Rockcastle County) are
doing that this year because there is no substitute teacher reimbursement.
In the conversation that ensued, the following thoughts were put forth:
Give money to districts and let them decide how to spend it.
Districts could give the teachers a choice.
We need to ensure flexibility with any new program.
It won’t work if we don’t pay the teachers.
Could money be spent on professional development rather than on stipends?
We would need to provide a menu of suggestions for how the money could be
If too many people are on the team, there could be a problem with coming to a
There should be at least one person who is the primary mentor and another one
who is the support person.
There is a need to check on the Professional Growth Plan after the internship.
The following summarizes some of the conclusions reached at this Task Force meeting:
TPA (product) Professional Learning Communities
Based on mastery
Flexible timeline (earliest in December)
The meeting was adjourned at 2:44.
Next meeting date: September 2, 2008 from 10:00 – 4:00